It is not that simple. You can make a strong case that if the US had not murdered 100k civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese would not have surrendered, which would have necessitated a ground war in Japan for the Allies to win the war, that would have no doubt resulted in the death of millions of Japanese citizens.
Discussion
They had ALREADY surrendered before the bombing.
And no, even if you could prove that, it still wouldn't justify it
The Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, and no doubt they would not have surrendered on August 15, if not for the threat of more atomic bombs being dropped on their populations.
A more humane way to end the war IMO was to drop an atomic bomb on a military position or naval port which would have little civilian casualties, and then tell the Japanese that Tokyo would be destroyed next if they did not surrender that perhaps would have ended the war.
But it is very easy in 2023 to talk about what leaders in 1945 should have done. In August 1945 countries had just had more than a half decade of destroying each others cities and civilian populations already, and Truman was not going to risk the deaths of 100s of thousands of his troops to invade Japan. The Emperor would likely fought to the last man if not for the atomic bomb, based on historians judgement of the man.
Twats today love to rewrite history.
Fuck em
Hindsight is 2020. This isn't rewriting history but learning from it so we don't commit the same crimes and avoid the evils of the past.
We needed to respond, but we also needed to have avoided evil acts, and attacking innocents is one of the worst crimes. If we instead attacked a military compound, the blood of the innocents would be on the hands of the Japanese military because they put them in harm's way.
It’s rewriting history.
What’s done is done.
Is it helpful to study history? Certainly.
But to go back and say “should never have done this.” Without the context of the day is revisionist nonsense.
"Study history, but don't ever pass judgement over a moral decision!"
We study history so we can make observations and learn from it, especially moral lessons.
Rewriting history would be denying facts. That's literally the opposite of what I'm doing.
This is one of the cases where being an expert actually matters.
Have you studied WWII extensively? Do you have all of the context?
Are you 100% positive the Japanese would have surrendered if we had used the bomb elsewhere?
100%. Not 98 or 99 but 100%.
citation needed
No creation needed. The plain fact is that two cities with all their innocents were attacked. Evil is not resolved by more evil. A military base or the emperor's palace should have been the target, not innocents. Even the emperor's palace would be really iffy.
The issue is not whether we needed to respond militarily (whether surrender was given) but the manner and method of our response. That doesn't need a citation.
I believe it IS that simple nostr:npub1ul45aruuhu09e5nts8mn49wsvhu58q8qmpvyyvpa0qhuvljehnys4uyt0r . I have a worldview/religion that says that murdering people is always wrong.
Making theoretical death calculations is not my job. I’m not God.
Example, I could theorize that a daycare down the road is housing a future mass murderer. A few parents are super jacked up and are training their kids to kill.
I cannot go kill all those children because I calculate that it will likely save more lives in the long run. I don’t know the future and I have no green light to kill.
Honest question: where is your moral principle that gives you the right to kill innocent people? Do you subscribe to a religion that says this is okay?
Your arguments are nonsense.
So if you had the chance to murder Adolph Hitler in 1939 knowing his plans for the destruction of Europe/Russia and mass murder of the Jews, and you knew the likelihood of him being able to do it, you wouldn’t murder Hitler because you don’t know the future for sure and your worldview/religion that says murdering people is “always” wrong?
This hypothetical is ridiculous because humans can’t know the future, like who Hitler would become. That’s one of the main points why murdering people for better future outcomes is evil. If someone killed your child because they thought he would turn out bad, I have a feeling you wouldn’t shrug it off. Furthermore, the US didn’t just bomb Hitler, they bombed a bunch of innocent people along with some “bad guys”.
Why is this hard for you? Are you on team USA no matter what? Are you afraid of meeting your maker and therefore willing to murder to stay alive longer? I’m seriously asking.
Your hypotheticals so far have been literally retarded.
There’s no point in having a discussion with sub 80iq such as yourself.
You can’t see how absurd your points are.
For example, in this hypothetical you contradict yourself.
So dumb.